By Scott Stinson

In this age of brain-dead media programmed zombies,
would it still be possible for the facts to speak? If so, there is
something worth saying about the modern "Jewish" race, not written by
anti-semites, but by Jews themselvesand where else but in The
Jewish Encyclopedia! Please excuse me for being so abrupt, but I had to
get your attention. You see, this article is worth reading because it
has some facts that you need to know about the authenticity of today's
Jewish race. The question that must be asked as well as answered is
simple: Are the modern Jews really the descendants of the ancient
people of Israel? The source of our information is also quite simple:
The Jewish Encyclopedia. Hopefully we will not find any anti-Semitism
in the writings of these Jewish scholars. However, the reader should be
forewarned. Their articles were written long before the age of
mass-media social engineering and do not contain any of the familiar
buzz-words common to today's new views. In other words, brace yourself
for a factual scientific analysis of the racial origins of the modern
Jews. Oh, and should you decide to verify any of these facts, you will
find them in your local library in the 1901-1905 edition of The Jewish
Encyclopedia. So, please, do read on.

At the turn of the last century there was great interest stirring in
the science of anthropology. In the wake of this, Jewish scholarship
turned its watchful eye upon itself and began to examine the racial
claims that modern Jews make to the ancestral heritage of ancient
Israel. The results were startling. The religious community found
itself completely alienated by its scientific counterpart. The
scientific method was coming face to face with religious traditions and
there was a great unsettling in the land. The facts were telling a
different story than what had been heard for centuries in the local
synagogue. In his article on Purity of Race, Joseph Jacobs relates
something of the dilemma that was gripping the Jewish community at this
time. He writes: "The question whether the Jews of today are in
the main descended from the Jews of Bible times, and from them alone,
is still undecided" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 283). What a startling statement to come from a Jewish
scholar and to be printed in The Jewish Encyclopedia! However,
scholarship must have its reasons. Let us look further to see what the
scientific community had discovered that would warrant such a radical
and perplexing statement.

In his article on Purity of Race, Jacobs gives several important facts
that were forcing anthropologists of his day to reconsider the modern
Jew's racial claims to be Biblical Israel. In the study of craniometry
which involves the measurements of the skull, the evidence was clearly
mounting against the modern Jews. After extensive samples were taken
from a broad spectrum of Jewish groups world-wide. The conclusion was
evident. Jacobs writes; "They are predominantly brachycephalic,
or broad-headed, while the Semites of Arabic origin are invariably
dolichocephalic, or long-headed" (Jew. Enc. X (1905), 284).
Simply put, all known Semites have historically been long-headed, but
the modern Jews were predominantly round-headed! While Jacobs avoids
drawing any personal conclusions, he relates a prevailing view of his
time: "Some anthropologist are inclined to associate the racial
origins of the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted,
but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls
and curved noses they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X
(1905), 284). The findings of some anthropologist
were leading them to conclude that the modern Jews were not in fact
Semites at all. but rather descendants of the ancient Hittites. Jacobs
however was personally hesitant to confess that the Jews were not the
Jews, simply because of the profound implications it imposed. He also
wrote the article on Anthropology and there declared: "Much turns
upon the preliminary question whether contemporary Jews are of the same
race as those mentioned in the Bible" (Jew. Enc. I (1901),
619). Jacobs obviously realized the implications of the data he was
receiving. It suggested the revolutionary idea that the Jews were not
in fact the Jews. He again presented the anthropological evidence the
cranial measurements of the modern Jews, stating: "Their skulls
are mainly brachycephalic; that is, the breadth is generally over 80
per cent of the length. This has been used as an argument against the
purity of race, as most Semiteslike the Arabs and
Syriansare dolichocephalic, or long-headed" (Jew, Enc. I
(1901), 619). Jacobs avoids any personal conclusions.
He was the former president of The Jewish Historical Society of England
and obviously could not bring himself to break with the great strength
of the "Jewish" tradition.

But Jacobs was not the only Jewish scholar of his day that was
attempting to come to terms with the startling discoveries of his time.
After all, it was the talk of the Jewish community. The haunting
question persisted, Were the Jews really the Jews? In his article on
Craniometry, Jewish scholar Maurice Fishberg provides a more
comprehensive treatment of the "Jewish" cranial findings that were
turning the Jewish world upside down. Moreover, Fishberg was a licensed
medical Doctor and a medical examiner in New York City. He was clearly
an expert in his field and eminently qualified to comment on the data
at hand. Unlike Jacobs who was tied to the Jewish historical society,
Fishberg presents the facts much more objectively. Forthwith, he
declares: "As is at present accepted by nearly all
anthropologists, the shape of the head is the most stable
characteristic of a given race" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). The article by Fishberg is thoroughly educational as
well as informative. His scientific frame of reference is immediately
evident. He includes numerous charts and statistics, a complete
inventory of all the cranial data collected on the Jews to date.
Fishberg also gives an understanding of some of the basic concepts and
terminology. He writes: "The cephalic index is expressed by
multiplying the width of the head by 100 and dividing the product by
the length ...The broader or rounder the head is, the higher its
cephalic index, and vice versa. When the cephalic index is above 80
anthropologist term it 'brachycephalic'; between 75 and 80,
'mesocephalic'; and less than 75, 'dolichocephalic"' (Jew. Enc.
IV (1902), 333). Dr. Fishberg then proceeds to present all the Jewish
cranial findings in classical scientific form. He writes:
"Appended is a table of nearly 3,000 Jewish heads, from various
countries, measured during the last twenty years" (Jew. Enc. IV
(1902), 333). In the table that follows, there is not one Jewish head
that has a cephalic index below 80, and they are taken from a wide
variety of countries spread throughout Europe, Russia, and Asia Minor.
Fishberg comments on the data: "On an examination of the figures
in this table a remarkable uniformity of the cephalic index of the
modern Jews will be noticed....nearly 90 per cent are between 81.5 and
83 ...Another remarkable fact is the striking absence of the
dolichocephalic type, which is characteristic of all the other modern
Semitic races" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). Dr. Fishberg also
presents a large graphic chart which shows the cephalic indexes of the
Jews by percentage. This chart peaks upward at the cephalic index
measurement of 82, indicating the average Jewish mean. Fishberg
comments on the overall percentage factor: "What is worthy of
notice is the small percentage of dolichocephalyonly 1.58
percentand the large preponderance of brachycephaly, 76.48 per
cent" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 334). The Jewish medical examiner
also confirms the representative nature of his findings. He states: "The cephalic indexes from which this curve was obtained were those
of Jews in various parts of the world" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902L 331). Fishberg then provides a table of cephalic
indexes by gender which shows little significant difference. He writes:
"There appears no perceptible difference between the cephalic
index of Jews and that of Jewesses" (Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335).
Finally, Fishberg addresses the most obvious and confronting problem
with his findings, specifically how they relate to the racial claims of
the modern Jews. He writes: "The most important problem suggested
by a study of craniometrical results concerning Jews is the relation of
the type head of the modern Jews to that of the ancient Hebrews and to
the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is dolichocephalic,
as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians,
Syrians . . . . The only way the type of the head may change is by
intermixture with other races. If the ancient Hebrews were of the same
stock as the modern non-Jewish Semites, and if the modern Jews are
their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be
expected among the Jews. As has been seen, all results of craniometry
prove that the Jews are brachycephalic, and that the dolichocephalic
form is only found among them in less than two percent of the cases"
(Jew. Enc. IV (1902), 335). Fishberg presents an excellent
summary of the problem. If the modern Jews are descendants of the
ancient Hebrews and are supposed to be Semites, then dolichocephalic
skulls would be expected. However, the exact opposite is true. The Jews
are predominantly round-headed. Fishberg provides some other cranial
data, but draws no further conclusions. The factual data he presents,
however, is some of the most incriminating evidence to have ever been
collected against the racial claims of the modern Jews.

Like the shape of the skull, the shape and configuration of the nose
is another important racial index that was recognized by anthropologist
at the turn of the century. It is also another clear sign against the
modern Jew's racial claims to be Biblical Israel. It turns out that the
so called "Jewish nose" is not Jewish at all, but rather comes from the
ancient Hittites, as do also their round skulls. Dr. Fishberg is also
the author of the article on the Nose. On the importance of this area
as a racial index, the Jewish medical examiner writes: "The
relation of the breadth of the nose to its length, known as the `nasal
index,' has been considered one of the best means of distinguishing the
various races of mankind" (Jew. Enc. IX (1905), 339). Fishberg
proceeds to present a table of the nasal indexes of the modern Jews.
Their marked similarity to one another and peculiarity to others again
predominates in this table. Joseph Jacobs, in his article on
Anthropology, also mentioned the peculiarity of the Jewish nose,
stating: "The nose is generally the characteristic feature of the
Jews, who have, on the average, the longest (77 ram) and narrowest (34
mm)" (Jew. Enc. I (1901), 619). In attempting to address this
peculiarity, Fishberg presents some of the current thinking circulating
among the anthropologist of his day. He writes: "Some authors
show that this form of nose is not characteristically Semitic, because
the modern non-Jewish Semites, particularly such as are supposed to
have maintained themselves in a pure state, as the bedouin Arabs, do
not possess this characteristic nose at all Their noses are as a rule
short, straight, and often 'snub' or concave. Luschan holds that the
hook-nose is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and contends
that the number of arched noses that are found among the Jews is due to
ancient intermixture with the Hittites in Asia Minor. He shows that
other races also, as the Armenian, for instance, who have a good
portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have hook-noses" (Jew.
Enc. IX (1905), 338). Thus, the notorious "Jewish" hook-nose is another
clear sign to the true racial origins of the modern Jews.

According to all the racial indicators recognized by leading
anthropologist at the turn of the century, the modern Jews have more in
common with the ancient Hittites, than with the ancient Israelites. In
another early publication written about the same time, this statement
is found in the article on the Hittites: "The human type is
always brachycephalic [round-headed], with brow receding sharply and
long nose making almost one line with the sloping forehead. In the
sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana districts, the nose has a
long curving tip, of very Jewish appearance" (Enc. Brit. XIII
(1910), 537). It should be evidently now that the round-headed
hook-nosed Jews of today have a definite racial connection with the
ancient Hittites, remembering or course what Joseph Jacobs wrote: "Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial origins of
the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with
the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and
cuffed noses they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X
(1903), 264). Moreover, a portrait of one of these
Hittites taken from a sculptural relief found on the tomb of an
Egyptian Pharaoh clearly reveals what looks like a typical modern Jew
(Jew. Enc. VI (1904), 427). The resemblance is so startling it is
uncanny! In light of this, and all the other scientific evidence,
confirmed and verified, it should be enough to convince any rational
person that the modern Jews are standing on very shaky ground in their
racial claims to be descendants of Biblical Israel. If you don't
believe me just read The Jewish Encyclopedia, remembering of course
that there is nothing anti- Semitic about it. After all, the Hittites
were not Semites at all. hittites.htm